A recent research paper has cast a critical eye on the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), a system used by the Indian Ministry of Education to rank higher education institutions. Authored by V Ramgopal Rao, former director of IIT-Delhi and current vice chancellor of Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), and Abhishek Singh, also from BITS, Pilani, the paper, published in the ‘Current Science’ journal, identifies several inconsistencies within the NIRF framework, raising concerns about its reliability.
The paper, titled ‘Unpacking Inconsistencies in the NIRF Rankings’, points out that the NIRF lacks specific mechanisms to directly assess teaching quality, a crucial element in evaluating educational institutions. It highlights the absence of classroom observations, student evaluations, and alumni feedback in the ranking process, leading to an incomplete picture of teaching effectiveness. The study further emphasizes the lack of consideration for the practical dimension of teaching, a significant aspect in many disciplines.
Another critical issue highlighted by the paper is the significant year-to-year fluctuations in the rankings. While some variations may reflect genuine changes in institutional performance, others could stem from factors beyond the institution’s control, such as temporary inconsistencies in data reporting or interpretation errors. The paper contrasts the NIRF’s lack of a mechanism to address these interannual swings with the presence of such a mechanism in international ranking systems like the QS World University Rankings. This absence raises questions about the NIRF’s ability to correct for anomalies and errors, potentially impacting the stability and reliability of its rankings.
The paper also expresses concerns about the NIRF’s reliance on self-reported data, questioning the consistency and accuracy of the information presented. The study notes that institutions with varying sizes, structures, and resources may interpret and report data differently, leading to disparities in the ranking outcomes. The lack of stringent mechanisms for verifying the accuracy and uniformity of submitted data introduces uncertainty into the rankings, potentially favoring institutions adept at presenting data in a favorable light rather than those genuinely excelling in academic parameters. This raises concerns about the credibility of the rankings, as their reliability depends on the accuracy and consistency of the data underpinning the evaluation process.
While acknowledging the NIRF’s value as a tool for assessing and comparing Indian educational institutions, the study stresses the need for a cautious and discerning approach. It emphasizes the need for an ongoing dialogue and refinement of the ranking framework to address the identified inconsistencies. The paper concludes by stating that the NIRF rankings, by their nature, subtly influence perceptions and that the identified issues, if left unaddressed, may impact the credibility and relevance of the rankings, potentially affecting the perceptions of stakeholders such as students, parents, and policymakers.
